Many a deep thinker has stressed the importance of knowing thyself. While the ancient means of knowing consisted primarily of self-examination and introspection, today we have other means. In many cases better means. Introspection is both fallible and severely limited.
For one we turn to psychology. The formal study of the thought processes and feelings and behaviors of humans. Of others like us. By knowing others we can better know ourselves.
While I often give the field of psychology a lot of deserved grief — the field is rife with sloppy science, exaggerated finds, and reckless theorizing — I must today give it due kudos. While it has its failings, the study of human psychology has made progress. And shows great promise.
In the spirit of applause and anticipation of better things to come, I offer these three, diverse, “quick hit” findings. Each fascinating in its own right.
1. Social fear may be at the root of stereotypes
Children with the genetic condition known as Williams syndrome have unusually friendly natures because they lack the sense of fear that the rest of us feel in many social situations. Now, a study reported in the April 13th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, suggests that children with Williams Syndrome are missing something else the rest of us have from a very tender age: the proclivity to stereotype others based on their race. [source; all bolds mine]
2. Emotions linger despite a lack of conscious memory
A new University of Iowa study offers some good news for caregivers and loved ones of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. Patients might forget a joke or a meaningful conversation — but even so, the warm feelings associated with the experience can stick around and boost their mood. [source]
3. The feelings and motivations of empathy and violence may be biologically “joined at the hip”
[T]he prefrontal and temporal cortex, the amygdala and other features of the limbic system (such as insulin and the cingulated cortex) play “a fundamental role in all situations in which empathy appears”.
Moya Albiol says these parts of the brain overlap “in a surprising way” with those that regulate aggression and violence. As a result, the scientific team argues that the cerebral circuits – for both empathy and violence – could be “partially similar”.
“We all know that encouraging empathy has an inhibiting effect on violence, but this may not only be a social question but also a biological one – stimulation of these neuronal circuits in one direction reduces their activity in the other”, the researcher adds. [source]
Sexism can be a subtle thing. It can even manifest itself in how we introduce a couple. Do we say the male’s name first, or the female’s?
And why didn’t I just write, Do we say the female’s name first, or the male’s? While I am not sexist in any conscious way I know about, and even consider myself a feminist of sorts (I believe in affirmative action for women, where needed), perhaps the spoken and written conventions (habits) I repeat reflect the sexism of another time. Do they perpetuate it?
I got to thinking about all of this after reading a recent science article, Men, Not Ladies, First: We’re Still Sexist in Writing.
First question: Why the use of “ladies” in the title and not the true equivalent of men, “women”? An intentional case in point?
As for the nutmeat of the research, in consisted of this:
Firstly, the team investigated the modern written context of the internet. Using 10 popular British boys and girls names and 10 popular American boys and girls names, the team searched the internet using each of the possible male-female name pairs as search terms, for both the male name first — i.e. ‘David and Sarah’, and then female name first — ‘Sarah and David’.
The results of this search found that for the British name pairs, the male-first name pairings accounted for 79 per cent of the mentions, and female-first pairs only 21 per cent. For the American names this was 70 per cent of the mentions were male-first and 30 per cent for female-first. [bold mine]
Second question: I wonder if this “sexist” name ordering was at least originally pragmatic. The more important person was put first. Hold on, hear me out. By more important I don’t mean ultimate/inherent value, I mean social importance. By addressing the person first who more likely made the decisions and/or owned the property, well, you were drawing attention to the priority of who it would be most advantageous to speak to (“deal with”).
I can certainly see how today this may be reversed. Imagine that you visit a female friend, Barbara, in her house. She has a child and a boyfriend, John. In this case, putting John’s name first just wouldn’t make sense. For in terms of social and pragmatic concerns, Barbara has priority.
And if the two are completely equal (in your eyes)? Maybe you go with a social convention. John and Barbara. Or maybe you say Barbara and John, sending a message: those days are gone.
Male behavior is influenced by testosterone levels. This fact is often exaggerated and simplified to the point of gross distortion, still there is truth to it. Not because I want it to be true, but because that’s what the research says.
In a new study published by the fledgling journal, Social Psychological and Personality Science, this dynamic was discovered:
The presence of an attractive woman elevates testosterone levels and physical risk taking in young men. [source]
One of the things that complicates this line of research is the question of when testosterone exerts its influence. Many times, an increase in levels will be recorded after certain types of aggressive/risky/sexual behaviors. Not before. That question is relevant with this new study, and from the one-page news release I was unable to discern an answer.
Consider the description of the study design:
Researchers asked young adult men to perform both easy and difficult tricks on skateboards, first in front of another male and then in front of a young, attractive female. The skateboarder’s testosterone levels were measured after each trick. [bold mine]
Was testosterone measured only after the trick?
Consistent with predictions, the young men took greater risks in the presence of the attractive female even when they knew there was a greater chance that they would crash. Testosterone levels were significantly higher in these men than in the men who were in the presence of another male.
I wonder, could it have been the undertaking of a risky behavior that caused a rise in testosterone behavior? Past research suggests that. Perhaps the authors of this study controlled for that. I’d certainly be interested to know.
The when of the influence of testosterone can actually be “in the womb” or other formative experiences in an individual’s past.
Still, an interesting finding. Attractive women means more risk taking and (then?) a higher testosterone level in males.
What does it all mean? If you are a guy, hire a male financial manager. You just might make wiser long-term decisions.
“Naturally, to an affluent Englishman, reared amid servants, a society never far from starvation will seem starkly egalitarian. There will be no opulent displays of status, no gross disparities. But social hierarchy can assume many forms, and in every human society it seems to find one.” Robin Wright (18)
In today’s democracies, while there is scant legal/explicit favoritism shown to individuals of upper status — no special laws on the books for billionaires only — informal favoritism continues. A man or woman need to wear no jeweled crown for special treatment. Fancy clothes and an automobile crowned with a Mercedes-Benz hood ornament might do it. Yes, you, to the front of the line. Here, sit at best table in the restaurant. You, you with the Ford sedan, just who do you think you are?
While status is largely informal and established through symbolic means today, it continues to represent access to resources. Why, for example, you a person want to make friends with the popular guy (high status)? Access to babes, access to parties, access to wealth and the lifestyle it brings. Good food, good drink. And a network of other individuals who may increase one’s access to desired resources.
Taking food as an example here: With equal access to resources, what value is there in status? Relevantly, when food is equally scarce or equally abundant, hierarchies don’t seem to thrive. Abundance, however, is rarely equally distributed. Many anthropological investigations have posited a historical relationship between abundant, non-perishable food stores and highly stratified societies.
“When further intensification of agriculture was needed to support a growing population that could not be supported by a social organization based on extended families such as the teri, chiefdoms evolved.” (19)
Only where there is something to control can big men or women become big, thanks to their ability to wrest control from others. Whatever the source of their power: muscle, advantageous relationships, persuasive talk and impressive behavior and ornamentation . . . .
(more…)Can infants receive a message about their environment — about how they should behave once up and about, to better fit it — from the milk they drink from their mother’s breast?
That would be something. And a new study of rhesus macaque monkeys suggests that it does happen. Sort of.
In a ScienceDaily article, Baby Monkeys Receive Signals Through Their Mother’s Breast Milk That Affect Behavior and Temperament, I learned . . .
Scientists from the Smithsonian Institution and the University of California, Davis are using this natural variation in breast milk quality and quantity to show that a mother’s milk sends a reliable signal to infants about their environment. This signal may program the infant’s behavior and temperament according to expectations of available resources and discourages temperaments that prove risky when food is scarce. [bold mine]
In the experiment, the researchers manipulated one variable, the richness of mothers’ milk (via their diets) to see if it would influence another variable, the subsequent temperament and behavior of the infants fed on this milk. And yes, they discovered a difference.
At 3 to 4 months old, each infant was temporarily separated from its mother and assessed according to its behavior and temperament. The study found that infants whose mothers had higher levels of milk energy soon after their birth coped more effectively (moved around more, explored more, ate and drank) and showed greater confidence (were more playful, curious and active). Infants whose mothers had lower milk energy had lower activity levels and were less confident when separated from their mother.
While this finding is very interesting, as a critical thinker I am left with questions. Here are two:
1. Can we really use words like signal and message to describe what transpires? Those words imply both a sort of information sent, vs. say, a molecular triggering, as they also imply an intellectual deciphering of the information. This, I believe, is misleading to some degree.
2. Is it possible that the quality of a mother’s milk reflects her social status as much as it does the general availability of food in the environment? Mothers at the bottom of the macaque hierarchy, and macaques are extremely hierarchically-oriented animals, may have lesser access to quality foods and greater exposure the stress and factors that could influence the quality of their milk. To me, this would make good sense of an infant’s subsequently less-risky behavior. When your mother is at the bottom of the hierarchy and/or has poor quality relationships, and your mother is your number one form of early social support, it pays not to behave in a risky manner. Walk more softly, otherwise you could get chased and bitten and perhaps exiled to social Siberia. Which isn’t good for survival. Hmm.
Nonetheless, the data generated from the study, an experiment, provided me with good food for thought. So to speak.
Man, wouldn’t it be cool to walk the surface of Mercury?
Yet, if you did it every day . . . ho-hum?
Due to psychology mechanisms such as habituation (with repeated exposure to a stimuli we respond more and more weakly), novel events tend to excite us more.
Before I head out into my relatively rich and wild backyard (relative to Mercury’s desert landscape) to do some gardening, I wish I could shake the bulk of my familiarity with it from my mind. My experience would be less tedious and more WOW!
[photo thanks to NASA]
